They made holes in trees for sex and used cotton or olive leaves as a lacing for lubrication. They invented. They went up to use sheep intestine. Finally they used grap leaves laced with opium. That was the turning point. Grape leaves laced with opium became so potent and luxurious that there was no going back. Men preferree that to actual women. Even if the laws changed men would still stick to tree holes with grapeleaf opium!!!

Couldnt they simply use their hands.

__________________
This is quite a game, politics. There are no permanent enemies, and no permanent friends,only permanent interests. - Some Firang

Search for Gobekli Tepe and read about it on the net. Also, see video, or at least some pix about their architecture.

We have been fed a lot of nonsense about history, where Egypt/Sumer/Indus valley were cradles of civilization. Look at Gobekle Tepe and see their architecture at least 12000 years ago. See how advanced they were.

The truth is this - as I study ancient languages, I am again and again shown that humanity is ONE. There has been such exchange of information and technology from various civilizations that to say a civilization did so-and-so is just back patting.

I have read historians claim that Greece was the father of geometry and it started in 500BC. Well, tablets have been found in Sumer in 3500BC with sine tables

Archimedes is considered father of optics. There is a passage in Mahabharata which talks about how to be a noble person. "Just as a piece of glass focuses the rays of the sun and creates fire, so also, by focusing your effort on your goal can you achieve success". That does not mean that lens was invented by Indians - it only means they knew about it. But so did many other cultures before that

Indian historians are arseholes. You cannot be a historian without studying under a senior one. And he would not pass you unless you had the right ideology - a leftist ideology where everything is shown as a class struggle.

But that is changing because of the internet. Documents are being thrown open to all. You may call me a boaster, but I can read more ancient scripts than 80% of current historians. People like me, and cleverer than me are taking the bull by the horns. They are not just changing history, but are asking questions that historians have NOT EVEN ASKED.

I'll give an example. I was studying a script called 'MODI' and in that reference I met a person P, who is a well known historian about Shivaji, a Maratha king. He had studied Shivaji in detail and could tell very minute details about his life. Yet, when I tried to ask questions like, "What was the per capita income in his time?" he looked blank. Questions like what was the population density, what was the growth level, level of joblessness, types of occupations, - he felt I was asking foolish questions, irrelevant ones. Shivaji was a good king because ABC, XYZ, etc have said so. He did so and so.

I have found that most historians in India are zero when it comes to numbers. They have no idea how to estimate GDP in a past era, price levels, etc. Even if they are estimated, what it means is unknown to them. They cannot even create a simple balance sheet of a kingdom.

But others are doing that. A Mr. Rao in a Western Univ computer dept has invented a formula for "entropy of languages". That is helping everyone decipher lost languages. But Indian linguists and historians understand nothing of this maths or what it means, of computers. An ex MD-Chairman of P&G India asked the question - "Why did India's GDP not increase with the coming of railways in British India? What happened?" He has tried to give an answer

We are living in exciting times, not because individuals are rebelling against established historians, but are treading their own path making the established historians redundant and obsolete!!

One interesting tit-bit. There was an emperor in India called Raja Bhoj. He would hold a poetry competition every year. The format was this - You had to write a poetry of 4 lines. It could be on any topic under the sun, but the last line, the punch line, was given to you. You had to create the first three. We have available several entries and prize winning entries for several years. I was thinking of starting a thread on these entries, calling it "Bhojisms" (my name)

My favorite is this - The last line of a 4 line poem has to be this -

"The Lion, on seeing the deer got frightened and ran away"

The guy who got the second prize wrote -

"Karna said - 'Oh Arjun. Pray to God. Get ready to die
For your death is assured at my hands." Arjun laughed and said,
'Whoever heard of a giant being killed by a midget? Who ever heard of
The Lion, on seeing the deer got frightened and ran away' "

Shriparamparindey pai, nobody is disagreeing with the facts that you are presenting nor the history you are quoting. In fact, very interesting reads... all your posts. What I am disagreeing is the hypothesis that you are presenting. In the very first link you posted here, the book of TJ's koran... read the description that is posted. The book of peace may have helped influence DoI... but TJ himself had a personal disdain on the religion of peace. So, how do you hypothesize these two statements Depending on your position (of which I presented two perspectives in my earlier post), we can continue our discussion.

__________________
-----------------------------------------------

"Hinduism brought a multitude of religions under one roof and survived for eons. Christianity and other religions will need to do the same or perish." - saneless

You have raised an important point - TJ's contempt for Muslims. That point is true. The problem is, it is very difficult to understand TJ. He was a man of contradictions -

i) He had contempt for Muslims but had regard for Koran
ii) He wrote that "all men are created equal" yet owned slaves

I can go on. I agree with what you say, but I have honestly no answer. I am unable to fully comprehend the thoughts of those people. Consider this -

i) There were several Englishmen who were in praise of Gita, but had contempt for Hindus
ii) There was a famous Indian freedom fighter who believed that "all men are created free" but was not ready to give freedom to Dalits
iii) An average Englishman had no doubt that a Saint from Ireland walked the sea to England, and was equally sure that if he did it, he would drown.

To us today, these appear as contradictions, but to those people they made perfect sense. So I am unable to answer you

Dude, have you even read the excerpt? Nowhere does it ever mention anything about TJ being influenced by Islam. In fact, it says that Islam was so far fetched of a religion in the US, that TJ wanted to ensure that the Declaration of Independence would safeguard future Islamic citizens.

TJ looked down upon Islam, and pretty much all religions for that matter.

Don't become yet another arsehole historian and obfuscate facts by sharing random ideas and random links.

You have raised an important point - TJ's contempt for Muslims. That point is true. The problem is, it is very difficult to understand TJ. He was a man of contradictions -

i) He had contempt for Muslims but had regard for Koran
ii) He wrote that "all men are created equal" yet owned slaves

I can go on. I agree with what you say, but I have honestly no answer. I am unable to fully comprehend the thoughts of those people. Consider this -

i) There were several Englishmen who were in praise of Gita, but had contempt for Hindus
ii) There was a famous Indian freedom fighter who believed that "all men are created free" but was not ready to give freedom to Dalits
iii) An average Englishman had no doubt that a Saint from Ireland walked the sea to England, and was equally sure that if he did it, he would drown.

To us today, these appear as contradictions, but to those people they made perfect sense. So I am unable to answer you

Sorry man.

Obviously, you are unable to answer, because you have no idea. Just because he owned a book on Quron, one among the billion books that he owned, doesn't make him a closet islamophile and that the Declaration of Independence was based upon hypothetical Islamic principles of feedom, liberty and equality.

You have raised an important point - TJ's contempt for Muslims. That point is true. The problem is, it is very difficult to understand TJ. He was a man of contradictions -

i) He had contempt for Muslims but had regard for Koran
ii) He wrote that "all men are created equal" yet owned slaves

I can go on. I agree with what you say, but I have honestly no answer. I am unable to fully comprehend the thoughts of those people. Consider this -

i) There were several Englishmen who were in praise of Gita, but had contempt for Hindus
ii) There was a famous Indian freedom fighter who believed that "all men are created free" but was not ready to give freedom to Dalits
iii) An average Englishman had no doubt that a Saint from Ireland walked the sea to England, and was equally sure that if he did it, he would drown.

To us today, these appear as contradictions, but to those people they made perfect sense. So I am unable to answer you

Sorry man.

Shrimpagey pai, you may better comprehend some things if you try to understand human nature. All that you have presented above are affects of basic human nature. We, by nature, move towards comfort... both from physical as well as mental aspects. Our body, both mentally and physically, looks forward to that rest that is so essential for it. We, in fact, strive for it... however contradictory it may seem.

As examples to try and explain your conundrum about human nature, you will see a true bakht of a saint... one who goes to the temple to listen to the saint... on coming out of the temple, kick the beggar on the street. How do you explain this You will see a politician who professes love for one and all then turn around and yell at the server who brings his food. Question is not why? But how? How can one who say one thing in one moment then do the exact opposite in the next moment

These all can be explained by human nature and our disconnection from what we say and how we act. You and I may have experienced this ourselves. You and I may have even wondered about it too... about why I myself can be so hypocritical. But then we look forward to that restful period and forget about all such thoughts.

If you have read the book of peace yourself then you would not be making these statements here... no sir, you would not be making such hypocritical statements and then being calm of your mind. You would see unrest... you would see disgust... not outside, but inside your own mind. Then how would you put all of this unrest aside and calmly write these posts Explain this to yourself... and you would have explained many a renowned Englishman or Indian or American.

__________________
-----------------------------------------------

"Hinduism brought a multitude of religions under one roof and survived for eons. Christianity and other religions will need to do the same or perish." - saneless